Document Type


Publication Date



In a former article (May number JOURNAL) fraud in contemplation of law, or legal fraud was considered. It was contended that a false representation, though honestly made and believed to be true, afforded sufficient ground to the vendor for rescinding a con- tract of sale. We now propose to briefly consider character of statements made, with some reference also to representations made to commercial agencies. It may be regarded as within the common knowledge of the profession, that the false representation must be the assertion of a fact, and usually of an existing fact, although the fact may depend upon some practical test assumed to have been made. This question oftener arises, in cases of alleged fraud on the purchaser, and though we are treating of fraud on the vendor, we may refer to such cases as illustrating the subject. The fullest inquiry is permissible. Thus, where on a sale of milk cans, the defendant attempted to recoup damages by reason of the false representation of plaintiff, that the plaintiff had title to certain territory, in which to use the cans, evidence was admitted, that the plaintiff's agent represented that as soon as the defendant's creamery was completed, another creamery company then operating in the territory, would have to leave it. So also in the same case it is held that the agent's representation, which he knew to be false, that 600 cans would operate the creamery, was a good ground for damages, if damages resulted. Davis v. Davis, 97 Mich. 419.